Interesting. I wonder if this too will be used in the suit against the Federal Government by the 14 States' Attorneys?
And what of Article 1 Section 9?
Definately will be used...it establishes precedent.
Hopefully they will.
.
I concur.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Interesting. I wonder if this too will be used in the suit against the Federal Government by the 14 States' Attorneys?
And what of Article 1 Section 9?
Definately will be used...it establishes precedent.
Hopefully they will.
.
Don't know if you heard about this, but the University of Washington attempted to have debate on the constitutionality of the mandate. It's so accepted by legal scholars of all political stripes that they couldn't find a single legal expert who was willing to speak for the proposition that it's unconstitutional.
Yeah...now that's a real unbiased group at that university. Perhaps they should get with the 14 other States Attorney's General who are suing the Fed's and let them in on the big secret.
14 politicians? 14 politicians running for election? I thought the Tea Party wanted to throw all the bums out?
I guess not all bums are created equal.
the amateur judicial scholars of the Right Wing Lunacy @ USMB are radical clowns.
Don't know if you heard about this, but the University of Washington attempted to have debate on the constitutionality of the mandate. It's so accepted by legal scholars of all political stripes that they couldn't find a single legal expert who was willing to speak for the proposition that it's unconstitutional.
I heard. But the Radicalized Clowns @ USMB will only attack you, your source, and anything else. Delusion takes no hostages.
. "The power of regulating commerce extends to the regulation of navigation. The power to regulate commerce extends to every species of commercial intercourse between the United States and foreiga nations, and among the several States. It dees not stop at the external boundary of a State. But it does not extend to a commerce which is completely internal. The power to regulate commerce is general, and has no limitations but such as are prescribed in the constitution itself. The power to regulate commerce, so far as it extends, is exclusively vested in Congress, and no part of it can be exercised by a State. State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress."
U.S. Supreme Court
GIBBONS v. OGDEN, 22 U.S. 1 (1824)
.
So Obama Hellcare does not stand a chance.
.
Yeah...now that's a real unbiased group at that university. Perhaps they should get with the 14 other States Attorney's General who are suing the Fed's and let them in on the big secret.
The open secret that those suits will likely be dismissed without being heard for failure to have standing to file in the first place.
that remains to be seen doesn't it.
. "The power of regulating commerce extends to the regulation of navigation. The power to regulate commerce extends to every species of commercial intercourse between the United States and foreiga nations, and among the several States. It dees not stop at the external boundary of a State. But it does not extend to a commerce which is completely internal. The power to regulate commerce is general, and has no limitations but such as are prescribed in the constitution itself. The power to regulate commerce, so far as it extends, is exclusively vested in Congress, and no part of it can be exercised by a State. State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress."
U.S. Supreme Court
GIBBONS v. OGDEN, 22 U.S. 1 (1824)
.
So Obama Hellcare does not stand a chance.
.
That ruling was almost 200 years ago. It doesn't mean the current court will agree with it. They have overturned previous decisions plenty of times.
Don't know if you heard about this, but the University of Washington attempted to have debate on the constitutionality of the mandate. It's so accepted by legal scholars of all political stripes that they couldn't find a single legal expert who was willing to speak for the proposition that it's unconstitutional.
Yeah...now that's a real unbiased group at that university. Perhaps they should get with the 14 other States Attorney's General who are suing the Fed's and let them in on the big secret.
The open secret that those suits will likely be dismissed without being heard for failure to have standing to file in the first place.
Is that why these State's Attorneys have filed the suits to protect the interests of their respective States, as they are bound to do by their respective State Constitutions?
Is this also why that about 36 State Legislatures have crafted legislation to protect themselves from Federally mandated LAW that they cannot afford?
Many are BROKE or on the brink of it.
The reason they filed their suits is to make a political grandstand.
The open secret that those suits will likely be dismissed without being heard for failure to have standing to file in the first place.
Is that why these State's Attorneys have filed the suits to protect the interests of their respective States, as they are bound to do by their respective State Constitutions?
Is this also why that about 36 State Legislatures have crafted legislation to protect themselves from Federally mandated LAW that they cannot afford?
Many are BROKE or on the brink of it.
The reason they filed their suits is to make a political grandstand. If they were truly concerned about their state's budgetary woes, they won't be pissing away money on lawsuits which have no shot of success.
The reason they filed their suits is to make a political grandstand.
That's your opinion and nothing more.
Yeah...now that's a real unbiased group at that university. Perhaps they should get with the 14 other States Attorney's General who are suing the Fed's and let them in on the big secret.
14 politicians? 14 politicians running for election? I thought the Tea Party wanted to throw all the bums out?
I guess not all bums are created equal.
*YOU* may demean these "BUMS" all you like, but they are doing thier Constitutionally mandated functions as States Attornies. Politics doesn't enter into it. Their Solid Soveriegnity as signatories as States under the 10th Amendment however does weigh heavily.
The FED cannot do as they please to override the States' own Constitutions, and expect no dissent from the States...by LAW itself as per the 10th Amendment.
Don't know if you heard about this, but the University of Washington attempted to have debate on the constitutionality of the mandate. It's so accepted by legal scholars of all political stripes that they couldn't find a single legal expert who was willing to speak for the proposition that it's unconstitutional.
I heard. But the Radicalized Clowns @ USMB will only attack you, your source, and anything else. Delusion takes no hostages.
Some of us "radicalized CLOWNS" as you so quaintly put it have standing in LAW.
So Obama Hellcare does not stand a chance.
.
That ruling was almost 200 years ago. It doesn't mean the current court will agree with it. They have overturned previous decisions plenty of times.
They may have. But i wonder if the Court will overturn State Legislation that circumvents what the FED is doing. And the legislation is in about 36 States.
Don't know if you heard about this, but the University of Washington attempted to have debate on the constitutionality of the mandate. It's so accepted by legal scholars of all political stripes that they couldn't find a single legal expert who was willing to speak for the proposition that it's unconstitutional.
The opinions of one university panel has no bearing on what the SCOTUS will decide. Obviously the AGs in over a dozen states wouldn't be filing these suits if they didn't think they had some merit.
The reason they filed their suits is to make a political grandstand.
That's your opinion and nothing more.
That ruling was almost 200 years ago. It doesn't mean the current court will agree with it. They have overturned previous decisions plenty of times.
They may have. But i wonder if the Court will overturn State Legislation that circumvents what the FED is doing. And the legislation is in about 36 States.
Yes, since the federal law in question trumps the laws of the individual states.
They may have. But i wonder if the Court will overturn State Legislation that circumvents what the FED is doing. And the legislation is in about 36 States.
Yes, since the federal law in question trumps the laws of the individual states.
NO it doesn't to think so relegates the Tenth Amendment to obscuirty and ignorence as you display. The FED cannot mandate something they have NO RIGHT in doing.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Their *OPINIONS* are wrong. The States have every right under InterState Commerce, and the 10th that the FED as in this LAW that their rights per admission to the Union are being trampled upon. The FED is going upon the 'Presumption' of a non-existant "Right" as emnumerated in the Constitution.The reason they filed their suits is to make a political grandstand.
That's your opinion and nothing more.
Sure. It also happens to the opinion of just about every legal scholar in the country.